Author: VWheelock

Continued This is a continuation of Blog 6 and provides further information which challenges the conventional wisdom that the cholesterol in the blood(TC) is an indication of the risk of developing heart disease and that if the TC is lowered there will be a corresponding reduction in that risk. The results of a major investigation in which 5201 men and women recruited from 4 different centres in the US were  monitored for an average of 4.8 years during which time there were 646 deaths are shown in Table 1. It is evident that the higher the LDL cholesterol (the so-called “bad” one) the lower the death rate(1).   TABLE 1 LDL CHOLESTEROL AND DEATH RATE LDL Cholesterol,mmol/L (mg/dl) Death rate per 1000 person-years <2.48 (96) 36.9   2.48-3.02(96-117) 26.3   3.02-3.46 (117-134) 25.3   3.46-3.96 (134-153) 26.5 >3.96(153) 19.0   In the Honolulu Heart Programme the TC was measured between 1965 and 1968 in 7961 men of Japanese origin who were born between 1900 and 1919. During the period of this study the men were monitored on 3 occasions and there were 2072 deaths. Details of cause of death was recorded and then related to the values which had been obtained for cholesterol. The results (Table 2) confirm that in this group of men the death rate attributed to coronary heart disease is directly associated with the TC level. However for deaths from stroke...

According to GP Tom Smith in The Guardian on Saturday 19th January 2013, he would NEVER follow a low carb diet because it may KILL YOU! His conclusion is based on the results of a study conducted on women in Sweden who were monitored for an average of 15 years. The report was published in the British Medical Journal on 26 June 2012 (http://www.bmj.com/content/344/bmj.e4026) Dr Smith states that; “Those who stuck to the low carbs and high protein had a rising risk of dying from heart attacks and strokes, depending on how strict they were and for how long they endured them. There was a staggering 62% higher risk among the women eating the strictest diet over those who ate normally.” If Dr Smith had bothered to keep himself informed of the latest developments in human nutrition (see for example the publications of Gary Taubes, Barry Groves, Malcolm Kendrick and Uffe Ravnskov) he would have realised that these conclusions just do not ring true The reality is that this work was an appalling piece of research which the editors of the BMJ should never have agreed to publish. It was subject to devastating criticisms in the immediate aftermath of the publication( and it seems that Dr Smith is unaware of these or has chosen to ignore them. (http://www.bmj.com/content/344/bmj.e4026?page=1&tab=responses)  Here is a selection of the comments: The actual incident rate...